• notacat@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      If hypothetically speaking I bury a land mine in a field-- does it matter if the person who eventually dies because of my actions was born before or after I buried the mine? Is when they were born in relation to my actions relevant at all?

      • treefrog
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re cherry picking their argument to prove your point btw.

        They compared the mother’s current life (and possible other children by proxy) with the value of a potential future person.

        Your argument ignores the burden being placed on the mom and her family. Also, you’re conflating the gift of life a mom gives a child with the moral responsibility of not leaving weapons around.

        Do you see the difference? You’re turning pregnancy into an obligation or a responsibility. Sound like any talking points you hear on the right?

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am not arguing against choice at all; I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” is not a rational argument for whether or not it deserves protection under the law.

          • treefrog
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I followed the thread and saw where you are coming from.

            People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.

            And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.

            • joe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.

              Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn’t my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.

              People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.

              Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.

              • treefrog
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.

                You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life. Your hypothetical doesn’t address this because not leaving dangerous things around for others to find is a responsibility, not a right. In other words, you pitted your responsibilities vs. a future person’s right to live and that’s a much different debate than pitting rights against one another.

                As to your last comment, you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to her bodily autonomy. Because this is the exact argument pro-birthers are using to justify incest and rape births.

                • joe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life.

                  That hypothetical was to show that we do concern ourselves with the consequences of our actions, even if those consequences affect people who have not yet been born. And it’s true. We do this. So saying “the zygote hasn’t been born-- it doesn’t matter what happens to it” (paraphrasing) is not a given statement-- it must be shown why we shouldn’t care about what happens to it, when we do care about unborn or future people in other instances.

                  you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to bodily autonomy.

                  This can’t be further from the truth. We make nuanced decisions about this all the time-- you’re not allowed to kill someone, but if they’re trying to kill you, you are then allowed to kill them to defend yourself. A person that punches a pregnant person in the stomach and causes them to miscarry can be charged with murder. It doesn’t matter if the pregnant person was punched on the way to an abortion. The question isn’t really (and never should have been) whether a zygote has rights. The question is defending why a pregnant person’s rights should supersede the rights of the zygote.

                  • treefrog
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ll flip it to help you out.

                    Why does a zygote’s rights supercede the rights of a rape victim?

      • AttackBunny@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        We don’t retroactively go and punish soldiers for setting mines, nor their commanders. So, no, it doesn’t matter

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know if land mines are part of it, but there are munitions that are considered a war crime to be used because the are likely to harm someone in some unspecified future.

      • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is my semen the land mine in this metaphor? And a vagina is the field? Or am I missing something here?

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was only pointing out that we do care what happens to people even if they haven’t been born at the time the actions take place. Because many people believe, in error, that “the zygote hasn’t been born yet” is evidence that we should not care what happens to it.